I read in here that with saracon , converting DSDs to higher sample rates than 96khz is pointless. In other places I read that converting DSD data to sample rates of 176.4khz and 88.2khz is mathematically simpler and thus preferable .

I tried both sample rates but am not sure which is better. 96khz sounds more detailed with better imaging while 88.2khz sound more clean or precise. I know these descriptions are vague but I was wondering if anyone with deeper understanding of the mathematical processes used by Saracon can give a definitive answer to which sample rate is preferable.

I read in here that with saracon , converting DSDs to higher sample rates than 96khz is pointless. In other places I read that converting DSD data to sample rates of 176.4khz and 88.2khz is mathematically simpler and thus preferable .

I tried both sample rates but am not sure which is better. 96khz sounds more detailed with better imaging while 88.2khz sound more clean or precise. I know these descriptions are vague but I was wondering if anyone with deeper understanding of the mathematical processes used by Saracon can give a definitive answer to which sample rate is preferable.

Saracon does good with cutting as low as they do and alone for that make anything with silly high sampling rates pointless. The listening you describe sounds more like a expection bias/mental problem to me. Please keep TOS#8 in mind when explaining your result more precise.